Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Acetic Acid 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Acetic Acid[edit]

Final (92/9/3) ended 00:07 October 31, 2005 (UTC)

Acetic Acid (talk · contribs) – Ryan has been around for 3 months and he's already amassed over 2600 edits. He's a funny guy and a nice guy who interacts with most users well. I have seen him attacked by trolls, and he's never lost his cool. He's part of WP:WC, always helping out newbies. In my opinion, the most important quality an admin should have is interacting well, so they'll be able to know about consensus. Ryan fulfills this. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
This time, I accept. :) Thank you both so much! Acetic'Acid 0:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Redwolf24 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extreme Random Support 2 Vote out of 80+ Support Votes --JAranda | watz sup 00:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Extreme I'm Going To Disney World in 2.5 Days Support! Good contributor, I wanted to nominate him but I didn't think he'd accept. (I thought he had been around longer, too... O_O) --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 19:12, 23 October 2005 (CDT)
  4. Acid burn support. «»Who?¿?meta 00:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. <3 --Phroziac(talk) 00:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Major support -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 00:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes! Linuxbeak | Talk 00:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — mendel ☎ 00:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sprt, no pun intended. -feydey 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Extreme I-had-two-edit-conflicts-while-voting support. ~~ N (t/c) 00:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Full, 100% Acidic Support. A.A is first on my 'list of users I hold in high regard'. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 00:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SUPPORT - had to be obnoxious. V/M
    00:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Ground floor support -Greg Asche (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support from Andre (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Thought he was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Always seen good stuff from this one. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support, and let Func beware, this nomination is going to trump his record because of Vinegar's level of activity and good faith in Wikipedia! Titoxd(?!?) 01:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Dude! Sasquatcht|c 01:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Depressed "my cat is missing" support. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    replacing with Very happy "my cat came back" support! :)) Grutness...wha? 12:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Duh. Even Boothy wouldn't oppose the Acid. Karmafist 01:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Be careful.  :) Acetic'Acid 02:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Ah yes, almost a formality now.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 02:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Sounds like a decent editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Full, unconditional support. -- Essjay · Talk 02:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support --Rogerd 02:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Kirill Lokshin 02:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Without reservation. -- Psy guy (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Extreme jumping on the bandwagon support.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Strong, extreme. I've been waiting for this. Banes 05:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support We need more "Cool" headed people like me:-) Tony the Marine 06:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. The Minister of War 06:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Excellent contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. I've been waiting for this one and finally I can vote support of such a wonerful candidate and person. You'll surely get the record. (preceding unsigned comment by Celestianpower (talk · contribs) 08:47, October 24, 2005)
  35. Support. He welcomed me, I guess I've always been fond of 'im. Good man, and good luck. --Blackcap | talk 09:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. We're going to see (100/1/1) before the week is over! (Yes, Boothy will oppose this, since three months is his absolute minimum, if I remember correctly). Owen× ☎ 11:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Dlyons493 Talk 13:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 13:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. FireFox 13:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support × . Arrgh!!! I was going to nominate him as soon as mine was over! (mmmmmmm... edit conflicts) the wub "?!" 14:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Martin 14:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Hey! I said the same thing in my RfA and I got booed off the stage! Support, obviously :P gkhan 14:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - there's no compelling reason not to.--Scimitar parley 15:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, Just keep him away from User:Sodium bicarbonate! --TantalumTelluride 17:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I am shocked! Appalled! Outraged!! I thought he was an administrator already! of course support, no doubt about it. Gryffindor 18:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Delete, gamecruft. Er, what? Wait, he's not an admin already? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Of course. Very good one. encephalon 19:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 20:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support! Where have I been? Riding out the hurricane.  BD2412 talk 20:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support -- Francs2000 20:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. El_C 21:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support = very yes ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 22:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Seen him around Wikipedia doing good work and he was the first user to welcome me when I was an anon. He will be a good one. Buena suerte!--Dakota 23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Yes, yes please. I can think of a whole list of articles that can be written, by the way. -Splashtalk 01:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I don't think there's a whole lot more to say, other than I believe that Acetic Acid could be an excellent admin. That is, if the community approves him ;) – Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Robert 04:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, he is a positive contributor. Bahn Mi 04:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Feel like I'm piling on, in a good way though. Good editor. Rx StrangeLove 04:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, sure. The editor has been quite helpful to the project ever since his joining and I have no doubt that he will find good use for sysop rights. Despite the reduced amount of time he has been active, he certainly appears to have a good grasp of the inner workings of the Wikipedia, so I won't complain about that, despite the fact that I think it wouldn't have hurt to wait a few more months. --Sn0wflake 06:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support --Kefalonia 08:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  61. C2H4O2 Support. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support levelheaded and reasonable. Friday (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I thought Acetic already was an admin! A good Wiki-enabler, as I like to say..:)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Easy call. -- DS1953 talk 17:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong Support. Fries wouldn't be the same without you. - Pureblade | ☼ 17:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. I think he'll do well as an admin, I trust him. JoanneB 21:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. KHM03 22:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Thryduulf 08:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  72. C6H8O6 Support Good user, good person, goodgasell. Ral315 (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Sheep vote Tintin 20:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, I thought I had voted already! Shauri smile! 20:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Extremely redundant Support. /me likes bandwagons. So musical. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. If I remember correctly, this is my first vote on an RfA, so that should say something. :) --Jacqui ★ 00:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. utcursch | talk 05:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Now that people are actually opposing I can't be the token guy who opposes. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 14:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  79. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - excellent editor, from what I had seen. --Ixfd64 04:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support (the non-ridiculous variety). Alphax τεχ 10:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  82. support, good editor, excellent interaction. Bishonen | talk 14:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Throw another support vote in the pile. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 00:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support jumping on the bandwagon of support for this very capable candidate --anetode¹ ² ³ 02:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support I tend to see this editors name every where I go, and It's been nothing but positive. Plus answers to questions were good enough to make me support without me seeing him everywhere :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  86. My Support and hope i won't be the last one to. --Saluyot 12:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Clearly Redundant Support! Always seeing good work from this editor. --Dvyost 15:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 20:03
  89. Support - administrator CH3COOH "in da house". Or something. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 01:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support! (This page is now 31 KB long!!!) Go gett'em tiger! -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 03:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Can't think how I missed voting on this one earlier. --GraemeL (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support per above.  Grue  18:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Very Dilute Oppose only because I think Acetic Acid needs some more ageing. This vote is not intended to reflect any personal opposistion to the candidacy. I support AA's adminship, and would otherwise vote support I just think that wiki admins ought to be normal users for at least a year. Klonimus 04:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Needs more time. Come back when you have written a real article, even if it is short. I dont think its a good idea having admins who havent gone through this. Either that or a lot more time. Justinc 10:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Editing a large number of User talk pages may gain votes at RfA, but the project is about substantive content. That I don't see. I'd oppose anyone as admin who doesn't have a track record on content. Charles Matthews 14:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I am puzzled by the widespread support of an editor who has been here for only three months. I consider duration of participation more important then edit counts, and six months has long been a customary minimum, albeit one that has been disregarded at times. I agree that Acetic Acid is personable and helpful, but three months is not long enough to learn how Wikipedia works. Further, I have reviewed the user's article contributions and am not impressed. I don't see any writing of a paragraph or more. Maybe I'm missing it, but all I see are categorization edits and some very simple mechanical changes. Even these are in pop culture areas rather than subjects where we face a more pressing need for editorial attention. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'll find that the arbitory figure is 3 months actually, Uninvited. --Celestianpower háblame 17:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, most — if not almost all — nominations are made when the user has around three months of experience, which is, I agree, a very low amount of time, since it's still within the "hype range", in which an editor starts off with a lot of steam but soon disappears from the project, losing interest completely. Voters also get less and less serious with time, and these little support jokes are getting quite tiring. They always were. But what are we to do, right. I support Acetic because I think he's got what it takes. --Sn0wflake 19:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    When RfAs are dull and one-sided as this one is, people are forced to look for other forms of entertainment. If all RfAs were as interesting as the AE one was, there would be no need for these lame jokes. Tintin 19:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly the problem lies on the fact that RfAs are not really supposed to be entertaining. At all. --Sn0wflake 20:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. He is not ready yet. Maybe in the future. Carioca 19:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Extremely XTREMELY weak oppose, just hasn't been here long enough, (this coming from the editor who nominated himself foolishly the day when he was here for 3 months, when he assumed it was 4). Still have to oppose though, sorry. Private Butcher 20:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Like UninvitedCompany, I place more weight on duration than edit count. It's not that AA has done anything wrong, but I'd like to see 6 months on the project before supporting. Carbonite | Talk 23:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As above. — Dan | Talk 00:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Less than 500 edits in the article namespace is a knockout criterion for me. --Pjacobi 20:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Answer to question 2 makes me a bit shaky, considering this is an encyclopedia. Jobe6 03:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. I originally joined Wikipedia for that sole purpose, but I soon realized that it wasn't for me. There are hundreds of editors that are far more intelligent than I'll ever be. But I can still contribute by utilizing the other skills I have. Plus, there aren't many articles I can think of that don't already exist. That's the only reason I wrote the vitaminwater article. I was surprised there wasn't one already. :P Acetic'Acid 03:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The vitaminwater article doesnt even have any links in it; I am tempted to AfD it myself. If you cant write a good article how can I trust you to recognise one? Justinc 10:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple. As an AFD closer, I don't go by my personal opinion of the article. I go by the consensus that was reached. Administrators don't run around, saying, "I think this is a bad article. DELETE." If they did, they'd face the wrath of the stewards. And for what it's worth, I'd add some interwiki links to vitaminwater right away. Acetic'Acid 15:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, slightly better. How about moving it to Glacéau which it is mostly about anyway, and seems more interesting? What else would you do to improve this article? Justinc 15:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, I'll move it and leave vitaminwater as a redirect. Next step toward improvement would probably be a picture or two. Acetic'Acid 15:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    A picture would be nice, but there are huge holes. We have a 'what' what is this thing, but we are missing a 'where': where is the company based, where are the products available and a 'when': when was the company founded and the products launched. Then there is the only little interesting nugget that sits there in the article, what is now the second sentence, about advertising. Which asks a big 'why'. Whats going on here. The soft drink market is usually full of advertising. Something different here needs writing about. Justinc 18:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do some research to include more about the company. As for the lack of advertisement, I don't know. I read that right off one of the bottles, which is why I quoted it. It lost some validity with the whole Formula 50/50 Cent endorsement. Anyway, I'll see what I can do. Acetic'Acid 19:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    So now you are coming up with the interesting stuff. You dont mention 50 Cent in the article. Was it a real endorsement or a fake one (as it doesnt mention the name)? There is some history at [1] I see. Justinc 19:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it was real. The Formula 50 bottle is platinum-colored (as a parody of 50's platinum success). Will be included as well. Acetic'Acid 19:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Although it looks like there is a lot of support for Acetic Acid, I still would be more comfortable with a few more months of experience. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral; I will not vote due to prior RFC filed by Acetic Acid, just comment to say that I am not concerned about him gaining admin powers, I do not think he will abuse his new position. Erwin 11:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • Previous nomination
    I have a feeling that this RFA is gonna be big Oran e (t) (c) (@) 00:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Big indeed --JAranda | watz sup 00:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone think it's interesting that Acetic Acid was 76/0/0, and after Klominus made the first oppose vote, three more quickly followed? Piling-on at a lesser scale, perhaps? (I know it doesn't matter unless another 15 people or so oppose, but it's interesting to note...) Ral315 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed that as well, though I think it started with AngryParsley's fake oppose vote (see talk page). The same thing happened with NickBush24's nomination. Acetic'Acid 19:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I plan on tackling vandalism via rollback and blocking. I haven't gone on RC Patrol or Newpage Patrol in a while, but I have caught a lot of vandalism on my watchlist (both user pages and articles). Also, since I welcome new users frequently, I'm familar with the New users log. I'll check for inappropriate usernames, imposters, etc. AfD closing won't be my biggest prioriety, but I will sort out the backlog if it becomes too congested. (By the way, I consider consensus to be 67% or higher on AfDs. Just over the 2/3 majority.)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Unfortunately, article writing is not my fortè. But I have tried my hand at it. I've written a stub or two (see Twisted Desire) and what I like to call, glorified stubs (see vitaminwater). Most of my article edits have been vandalism reverts or minor edits.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. My biggest cause of stress was the RfC I filed against Erwin Walsh. When I was more active on AfD, I noticed Erwin making rude comments during his AfD nominations. After noticing other users were having problems with him, I decided to take my chances and file a Request for Comment. It stayed open for two months or so. I asked to have it closed and archived after noticing a decline in Erwin's activity. I also saw his behavior improving, so I didn't think it was necessary anymore. (See the RfC and its corresponding talk page for more information). I noticed Erwin about closing the RfC. I think it's safe to say that we're both happy this is over. (See our comments on his talk page).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Acetic_Acid_2&oldid=1146642014"